Claude Bernard, Appellant, v. U. S. Lines, Incorporated, Appellee, v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc. and the United States of America, Appellees., 475 F.2d 1134 (4th Cir. 1973)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (March 13, 1973)

Docket number: 72-2115

Linked as:



Citations:

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - William Lincoln, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Reksten Management, Defendant-Appellee, and New Orleans Cold Storage; Green Tundra, Her Engines, Appurtenances, Cargo, Apparel, Electronics, Etc., in Rem, Defendants., 354 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2003)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - No. 93-1625., 32 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 1994)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Fred Russell, Plaintiff, Interstate Towing Company, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, v. City Ice and Fuel Company of Point Pleasant, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee., 539 F.2d 1318 (4th Cir. 1976)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Christobal Rosario, Appellee, v. American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. v. United States of America, Appellant., 531 F.2d 1227 (3rd Cir. 1976)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - Stanley Lee West, Sr. and Faye West, as Next Friends and Parents of Stanley Lee West, Jr., Appellees, v. United States of America, Appellant., 592 F.2d 487 (8th Cir. 1979)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Notice: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Loretta Howard, Administratrix of the Estate of Lorenzo C. Howard, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim R. Milam, A/K/a Jimmy Milam, A/K/a Jimmie R. Milam; Carter Lee Wolford; Larry Robinette; Adery Pacific, Employees, Agents, and Servants; and Tall Timber Coal Company; Rawl Sales and Processing Co.; A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc.; St. Joe'S Minerals Corporation; Fluor Corporation; Scallop Corporation; Bureau of Mine Safety and Health Administration, (United States Department of Labor), Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellees, National Labor Relations Board, Party-In-Interest-Appellee., 905 F.2d 1529 (4th Cir. 1990)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Helen D. Kelley and John E. Kelley, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellant, Ruth Semko, Defendant., 568 F.2d 259 (2nd Cir. 1978)

    • Text:

    Stuart V. Carter, Norfolk, Va. (Breit, Rutter, Montagna & Carter, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellant.

    Daniel Lee Brawley, Wilmington, N. C. (Lonnie B. Williams and Marshall, Williams, Gorham & Brawley, Wilmington, N. C., on brief), for Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc.

    Ronald R. Glancz, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice (Harlington Wood, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas P. McNamara, U. S. Atty., E. D. N. C., and Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept. of Justice, on brief), for the United States.

    Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, BUTZNER, Circuit Judge, and BRYAN, District Judge.

    PER CURIAM.

    We affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the district court.

    Claude Bernard, a longshoreman, brought this suit for pierside injuries caused by a land-based forklift owned by the United States while he was loading a ship. The injuries were not caused by the ship or its gear. Subsequently, the Supreme Court decided Victory Carriers v. Law, 404 U.S. 202, 92 S.Ct. 418, 30 L.Ed.2d 383 (1971), which Bernard concedes forecloses any claim against the ship or its owner for negligence or unseaworthiness. However, he seeks to sustain admiralty jurisdiction against the United States, time charterer of the vessel and terminal owner, which had been named a third party defendant by the owner of the vessel. Bernard bases his allegation of jurisdiction on the theory that he is the third party beneficiary of a maritime contract. The district court held that he was not, and we agree.

    Bernard urges two theories, one under the stevedoring contract between Ryan Stevedoring Co. and the United States and the other under the charter party between United States Lines, owner of the vessel, and the United States. However, the warranty of workmenlike performance in the stevedoring contract was made by Ryan, not the United States. It ran to the vessel and its charterer, not the longshoreman. Similarly, the charter party created no contractual duty to the longshoreman on the part of the United States as time charterer. Habrat v. United States, 310 F.Supp. 618, 620 (W.D.Pa.1970); Klishewich v. Mediterranean Agencies, Inc., 302 F.Supp. 712 (E.D.N.Y.1969); Buthusien v. Central Gulf S. S. Corp., 217 F.Supp. 903 (E.D.Pa.1963).

    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(c), which allowed the United States Lines, as third party plaintiff, to demand judgment against the United States, third party defendant, in favor of Bernard, the plaintiff, does not create admiralty jurisdiction. Rule 82 expressly negates the extension of jurisdiction by the rules.

    Bernard also seeks to assert a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. While Bernard filed his suit within two years of the accident, his failure to file an administrative claim within the statutory period bars his action. 28 U.S.C. Secs . 2401(b), 2675(a).

    Affirmed.

    Sponsored links

    Quoted documents

    Loading article preview...cerrar